Report Exposes Flaws in Constitutional Amendment Bill 3 Hearings

The recent public hearings on the Constitution Amendment Bill No. 3 (CAB3) were presented as a nationwide consultation exercise but a new report suggests the process was marked by intimidation, restricted participation and unequal access to voice.

A report, compiled by the Alliance for Community Based Organisations (ACBOs) draws on observations from 51 hearing venues across the country and paints a picture of a process that while extensive in scope often fell short of democratic standards.

According to the findings, the hearings were broadly organised across all provinces with large crowds attending in many areas.

However, the report concludes that “high turnout did not guarantee meaningful participation,” with many attendees unable to speak or influence proceedings.

In several cases, participants were reportedly denied access to venues, prevented from speaking or discouraged from expressing dissenting views.

Others were said to have been coached on what to say, raising concerns about the authenticity of contributions.

The report highlights multiple instances where freedom of expression was constrained.

These ranged from verbal intimidation and selective microphone access to physical assaults and threats.

In some locations, individuals opposing the Bill were allegedly beaten, forced out of venues or threatened after speaking.

There are also claims of surveillance and intimidation before and after hearings including participants being questioned, monitored or pursued.

Such incidents, the report argues, created a “chilling effect”, discouraging open debate and limiting the diversity of views expressed.

Beyond intimidation, practical challenges also restricted participation.

Long travel distances, lack of transport, overcrowded venues and inaccessible facilities were cited as common barriers.

People with disabilities were particularly affected with inconsistent provision of accessible infrastructure such as ramps and sign language interpretation.

In some cases, they were reportedly unable to enter venues at all.

The report also notes that some citizens attended hearings under pressure, fearing repercussions if they did not participate.

While women and young women were present in large numbers at many venues, their participation was often constrained.

The report documents cases where women were denied the opportunity to speak or faced threats and retaliation for doing so.

In some instances, women who expressed dissenting views were allegedly assaulted or targeted after the hearings, highlighting what the report describes as “gendered risks” of participation.

The findings also indicate that public concern was not limited to the conduct of the hearings.

Many participants raised objections to the substance of the Bill including its potential impact on democratic accountability, electoral processes and constitutional institutions.

Particular concern was expressed over proposals affecting the Zimbabwe Gender Commission which the report identifies as a major issue for women’s rights.

ACBOs concludes that while the hearings met the formal requirements of a public consultation, they often failed to provide the conditions necessary for free, equal and meaningful participation.

“The central problem was not simply that meetings were held, but that the conditions required for genuine public voice were repeatedly undermined,” the report notes

The organisation is calling for reforms to ensure future consultations are safer, more inclusive and freer from political interference.